Hi Ham, > [Ham, previously]: > > You can only speculate on what your cat or another human being > > realizes. But there can be no doubt as to what you as your own > > subject realizes. Are we at least in agreement on this? If not, > > how do you define "realization"? > > [Platt]: > > "Realization" equals awareness equals experience. Yes, we > > agree that I'm aware of being aware -- if I stop to think (SOL) > > about it. I doubt if UTOE is similarly aware of being aware, however. > > I assume you accept awareness of being-aware as the equivalent of > self-awareness. > In that case, awareness is not something you have to "stop and think > about".
I'm not aware of being aware UNTIL I think about it. > Pre-intellectually (prior to any reflection) you, yourself, are the knower > of your > experience. Is that not true? There's no distinction between knowing and experience, except in SOM land where you reside. > [Ham]: > > Assuming your analysis of the MoQ's "subject" is correct, > > you have "patterns of value" chasing after value. > > [Platt]: > > Not chasing, interacting. > > [Ham]: > > A value (or pattern of values) has no need to interact > > with what it already is. It's a manner of speaking in SOM language. If you are saying, "It is what it is," I agree. > > [Platt]: > > "Need" is a value. The "interaction" is a value. Value "is." > > So, according to your ontology, there is no reality but Value. Everything > equates to it; that is to say, Value = Self = Experience = Realization. > All > distinctions are patterns created by Intellect which is a higher (Dynamic) > level of Value. Does that correctly state your MOQ worldview? Except in the MOQ fundamental reality is Quality. Quality = value = morality = experience = awareness = realization = knowing. "Self" is a secondary static pattern. For purposes of metaphysical discussion, Quality is split into static and Dynamic. > [Ham]: > > This throws Michael's concept of the subject > > "seeking transcendence" flat on its face. > > [It also ignores subjective desire, motivation, individual initiative, > inspiration, aesthetic appreciation, and a host of other psycho-emotional > sensibilities that you earnestly believe in.] > > [Platt]: > > How so? There are high values and low values. > > To some transcendence is a high value. > > But doesn't the "level" or "pattern" of value ultimately equate to Value > itself? The reality you have outlined IS Value, and ONLY Value. Patterns > and levels are but intellectual reductions (illusory divisions) of the > aggregate Value, are they not? Isn't this how the MoQ "overcomes" SOM? High and low values are integral to experience. They are not "intellectual reductions." They are immediately sensed. Intellectual descriptions come after. Even UTOE knows what's good and bad for him. So does a cockroach. So does a petunia. > [Platt]: > > Sensibility is sense-of-value. UTOE has it, a cockroach > > has it, an atom has it. > > > > Motivation towards higher value (betterness) is built into the > > universe, as represented in all creatures (value patterns) > > great and small. It's the answer to, "Why survive?" > > > > The "power of knowing or realizing" is plain old "experience." > > Intellect is based on the value of the subject/object division > > which in turn is the basis of reason, logic, science. Beyond > > intellect is the wordless understanding that experience and > > value are inseparable. > > In your (MoQ) view of existence, patterning (i.e. differentiation) is the > only creation, and even that is illusory. You do not allow for a Creator, > and there is no teleological purpose for existence. The universal drive to betterness is teleological. As for a Creator you do not allow for a Creator of a Creator, ad infinitum. Your metaphysics eventually falls into the black hole described by Godels Theorem. Quality needs no Creator -- it is timeless: Quality needs no explanation -- it is what is happening as you read these words. > With all due respect, > Platt, the reality you have described amounts to little more than > something > called Value having a dream about being differentiated. Were I a > religious > man, I would find this worldview a pathetic substitute for theism. As a > philosophy, it lacks substance, meaning, and metaphysical insight. With all due respect, Ham, I pass along one of my father's favorite sayings: " 'To each his own,' said the old lady as she kissed the cow." Or if I may borrow from the great bard: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Ham, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." With best regards, Platt P.S. Are you buying gold? Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
